Collins v Marinovich

The case of Collins v Marinovich involved the Collins family, who were the applicants, and Marinovich and others, who were the respondents. The dispute originated in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the applicants sought to challenge a costs assessor’s certificate. The Supreme Court had previously set aside the costs assessor’s certificate on review. The respondents in that review now applied for an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), arguing they were entitled to indemnity costs due to the unsuccessful review of the costs certificate.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the respondents were eligible for an indemnity certificate. The applicants argued that the respondents were not entitled to indemnity costs because their review did not succeed on the ground that the costs assessor’s decision was manifestly wrong. The court was required to consider the principles governing the grant of indemnity certificates and assess whether the respondents' review met the necessary criteria.

The court considered precedents such as Eversden Pty Ltd v Miladi and Wiesac Pty Ltd v Insurance Australia Limited (No 4), which outlined the principles governing indemnity costs. It found that the respondents had succeeded in their review, as the costs assessor’s certificate was set aside. The court also noted that the respondents had not acted unreasonably in pursuing their review. Based on these findings, the court exercised its discretion to grant the respondents an indemnity certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

The court ordered that the first respondents were granted an indemnity certificate under s 15(1) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld). This decision underscores the importance of the court's discretion in assessing indemnity costs, particularly in cases where a review of a costs assessor’s certificate is successful.